YouTube, Gaming and Social Networking Busting TV's Chops

splitenz writes "A TV executive told a major Australian broadband conference that television audiences are slipping away into social media, gaming and other online subscription spaces. YouTube and online gaming is taking the traditional TV audience online and TV is struggling to fight back."

Comments

Australian Effect?

[cappp]

I wonder if this is some kind of regional effect, or perhaps a little hyperbole designed to keep things interesting. The most recent numbers I could find note that in the UK

"Viewers watched an average of three hours and 45 minutes of television a day in 2009, 3% more than in 2004, according to research published today by the media regulator Ofcom"

If there was some generational effect going on (the article does note that the elderly watch more than the average) it would be somewhat mitigated by the Economist's finding that

"In December 2009, Nielsen estimated that 34% of internet users had the television on while surfing the net. But when tuning in for a programme, television-watchers used the internet only about 3% of the time"

US numbers show a similar trend -

"the average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home, a 1.2% increase from last year"

Those who are interested should check out the American Time Use Survey - it has some rather interesting content (for instance: 15 to 19 read for an average of 5 minutes per weekend day while spending 1.0 hour playing games or using a computer for leisure. )
Taking the two pieces together it would seem we're watching more TV in general, and when we're online we have the TV on anyway. Hardly seems worth pounding the drums of the apocalypse over.

One way to fight back ...

[tomhudson]

... part of the problem is that most people are stuck having to buy a "package" from either a cable or satellite provider. If HD TV stations increased their OTA (over-the-airwaves) presence (better antenna positioning, more repeaters), people would have more free (as in it doesn't cost more than a pair of bunny ears) HD TV.

... and that would help them compete, because many streaming Internet services will run up against their ISP's bandwidth caps if heavily used.

Well yeah

[pspahn]

People aren't happy with passive entertainment like they once were. They want to be engaged.

Some good TV shows can do that, but most of them do not.

Re:Well yeah

[toejam13]

It goes beyond this.

Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers. Advertisers are aware that intelligent viewers are not swayed by their advertising. To keep impressionable viewers watching, you need the kind of dumb content that draws them in. As a result, intelligent content is being pushed to the few premium providers that forgo traditional advertising.

It is something of a downward spiral. Content is stupid. Methods to access much of that content are still stupid. Savvy viewers quickly become frustrated with the fragmented paywalls, delayed releases and other obstacles, so they either pirate the content they want or simply go without. Why wait several months for the next season of Big Love to be released for streaming on Netflix when you can grab an HD MP4 of it from the Usenet or a Torrent site the day after it airs?

And the mini-sat and cable companies don't help things with their fucked up channel packages. To watch the handful of shows I still like, I'd have to subscribe to over $70/mo worth of channels. 98% of the content shown is little more than visual tripe. Why bother?

When the Boomers start dying off, traditional television as we know it will probably die with them. Maybe then we'll see a Renaissance in the television world. Until then, the people who came up with Retarded Guido TV, My Vagina is a Clown Car, Laugh at the Midgets Show and Lifestyles of Retarded Alaskan Politicians can all DIAF. So can the shitheads who watch it, too.

Re:Well yeah

[Gadget_Guy]

...you can grab an HD MP4 of it from a Torrent site the day after it airs?

I fixed that for you. You have got to be more careful about following the rules.

Re:Well yeah

[TapeCutter]

When the Boomers start dying off, traditional television as we know it will probably die with them.

I'm a boomer, and judging by your post I care a whole lot less about TV than you do. Same goes for my 77yo dad who spends most days in his garden and most evenings on his computer.

Re:Well yeah

[funkatron]

It goes beyond this.

Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers. Advertisers are aware that intelligent viewers are not swayed by their advertising. To keep impressionable viewers watching, you need the kind of dumb content that draws them in. As a result, intelligent content is being pushed to the few premium providers that forgo traditional advertising.

Really? Sorry, but go watch some 80s tv, go watch some 90s tv (youtube might help here). There has ALWAYS been dumb shit on tv, picking out good stuff has ALWAYS been hard. I seriously doubt there is an increase here.

Re:Well yeah

[mlts]

I see TVs used for these purposes:

1: Placate older viewers who have not hopped onto the Internet as a mainstream source of information.

2: Act as background noise so people waiting in some sort of waiting room have something to focus on.

3: A distraction in a hospital room.

4: People who want to be spoon fed the news. For example, in 5-10 minutes of reading Google News, I get all the stories that it would take a TV watcher 1-2 hours of sitting there getting spoon fed whatever biased info the station chooses to put on there. Of course, Websites can be biased, but it is easy to flip between several and at least figure out a nugget of truth out of the haystack of propaganda.

With this in mind, it is understandable that the top tier economic base of people have moved from TV to other forms of entertainment.

It shows in how much money is being spent on TV shows too. TV studios don't care to spend the top dollar on sci-fi shows and special effects. Why do that, when doing a "reality show" is far cheaper? Why pay for a sonic screwdriver wielder when a Snooki will score the advertising bucks?

This race to the bottom is not just killing TV, but radio too. Radio once was the place to find new bands. Now, that has been replaced by word of mouth, YouTube, and services like last.fm and Pandora, and what you hear on the radio is likely what people's fathers or grandfathers heard when they were drag-racing their Trans-Ams.

What needs to happen? A return to the roots. TV has a niche for education, especially kids too small to really put in front of a computer. This is what the inventor of the medium conceptualized TV as being for. TV also needs to start showing stuff that other mediums have trouble with, such as films from up and coming producers. Radio needs an enema too. They need to go back to having not just a 1-2 hour special on Friday nights with new stuff, but start showcasing new bands... just like they used to before the late 90s. Then they might be relevant in daily life again.

Re:Well yeah

[ColdWetDog]

Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers.

Right. Hogan's Heros. Gilligan's Island. The A-Team. Fantasy Island.

Monday Night Football. NASCAR Racing.

The pinnacle of Western Civilization. Them's some strong rose colored glasses you got on there son.

Re:Well yeah

[evilviper]

in 5-10 minutes of reading Google News, I get all the stories that it would take a TV watcher 1-2 hours of sitting there getting spoon fed whatever biased info the station chooses to put on there.

This is your own fault for watching "local" news, or the morning semi-newsy entertainment shows. The real news is on CBS or ABC at 4:30am. It takes hours of reading the headlines to get the info they provide in 30 minutes (actually 20 without commercials).

And that's just the top of the heap. The nightly "world" news programs are damn respectable too. As is ABC's hours of late night news. Saying TV news is no good, based on local news is like saying tv is no good because reality tv shows suck. There's plenty of non crap, if you try to find it.

Re:Well yeah

[benhattman]

I agree. We always look back at the old and think it was great because we've forgotten the mediocre and only remember the truly great or truly bad. For instance, we know music was amazing in the 60s/70s because look what you had: The Beatles, Led Zepplin, The Who, etc. Contrast that with me not naming anyone great making music today and you can see how the times have changed.

That said, the transition of prime time TV from sitcoms towards reality programming does seem worse to many of us than what came before. I'd take the A-Team over American Idol any day. And even when the reality show is of good quality, which the A-Team was not, programming today tends to be meaner. And I don't really need to watch more mean things.

No, they're not...

[PRMan]

TV is struggling to fight back.

If they actually WERE serious about competing, they would make TV easy to watch on the viewer's terms. But they fight every attempt of that happening by continuously putting blocks between the customer and the shows.

Re:No, they're not...

[Nerdfest]

They change show's time slots, both time and day, break seasons up into at least 2 widely spaced parts, pop up insanely large and distracting station identifiers, alter show start times slightly so poorly designed DVRs miss the beginning or the end. In general, they seem to *want* people to download shows or watch them through another medium. I find it incomprehensible.

Re:No, they're not...

[tepples]

Why does anyone need cable anymore with Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus?

Reason 1: Comcast and other cable ISPs give a deep discount on TV to their Internet subscribers.

Reason 2: As I understand it, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus are good for works that can be tape delayed by months to a year. Live news and live sports are not this way. Some people like to watch MSNBC's Morning Joe with their morning joe. And if you have a sports fan living with you, he won't be amused at losing access to sporting events that aren't on the broadcast networks, such as out-of-market games or motor racing.

Reason 3: Services like these tend to be U.S.-only, and I've been told they lack foreign counterparts due to country-specific exclusive licensing deals signed before there was a European Union. How much does a U.S. green card cost again?

Star Trek Prophecy

[Nethemas the Great]

Star Trek:TNG - "The Neutral Zone"

SONNY Yeah, boob-tube... you know. I'd like to find out how the Braves are doin' after all this time. Probably still finding ways to lose.

DATA (to Riker) Oh -- I think he means television, sir.

SONNY Or maybe catch up on the soaps.

DATA (to Sonny) That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.

poor content

[Charliemopps]

I'm sorry, but televisions content is just plain garbage. Each channel has, at most 2 good shows for the entire week. AMC seems to be the only channel putting out quality TV now... that should make the big name broadcasters ashamed of themselves. When I got to work people talk about Madmen, the walking dead, breaking bad... no one has any idea what's on CBS/NBC/ABC anymore because it's worthless trash. Usually if I accidentally switch to one of those networks for any period of time I'm so disgusted with whatever reality garbage they've throw on the screen I'm actually ashamed of the society I belong to.

Re:poor content

[Tsu-na-mi]

With you in spirit, but your statements are tinged with hyperbole. The major networks air more than 2 good shows a week, and more and more "cable channels" like AMC, USA, TNT, etc have begun airing some quality original programming. However, for every show like 30 Rock or The Closer, we get ten Real Worlds, Survivors, or Dancing with the Stars.

Premium channels have been booming with original content in recent years. Maybe it's just because I did not have access to them much before BT trackers and release groups got into them, but I think there are more original shows on HBO, Showtime, etc than there used to be. Sure, you had things like 1st and Ten, Dream On, and the Red Shoe Diaries on HBO and Showtime 15-25 years ago, but now you have so much more. A lot of great shows in recent times have come form these networks (Deadwood, Weeds, Dexter, The Sopranos), along with a great deal more entertaining ones (The Tudors, Rome, Secret Diary of a Call Girl (not original, I know)).

As someone else has stated, the real problem is that TV providers have made it an increasingly hostile environment to watch their content.
  - More commercial time per hour. The average 1-hour show is under 44 minutes now.
  - Channel identifier logos on constantly. In the beginning these were semi-transparent line-art, now they are colorful and often animated.
  - Squashed and sped-up credit sequences. Sure, few people want to see them, but sometimes we do, and without commercial/news at 10 hype
  - Pop-up in-show ads "New Episode of Dancing With the Stars NEXT" at the bottom of the screen, blocking this show
  - Time-shifting to screw up DVR users
  - Loudness tricks to make commercials seem louder than the show. Gotta crank up the movie because it's so quiet, then WHAM! "BUY ZEST SOAP!"
  - Constant schedule changes

I gave up cable TV about 8-9 years ago. I was heavy into anime at the time, had just moved, so I went with internet and substantial DVD purchases (back when DVDs were still $30 each, though you could get them for ~33-50% off online). I found out I just did not need to veg out in front of TV shows I didn;t care about every evening. I read more books, was online more, had other things to do.

It was liberating. ^_^

Just Another Screen

[hovelander]

Personally, I am going to blame the messenger, i.e. Nielsen. Shows that trend towards tech savvy types will always struggle and die if the only emphasis is going to be on boxes that measure appointment viewing. I don’t have a box, so I don’t matter. If I don’t matter, why subject myself to appointment viewing commercials ALONG with the obvious product placement?

If modern HD TVs are are just another computer screen, what is in store for appointment viewing as we undergo generational attrition?

For me, modern television is going through the same death spiral that modern commercial music is going through. My music interests have gone entirely independent of the big music labels because of the crap they pull and produce. The more they dumb down, the less of my attention they get. Viewing numbers will distribute across the hundreds of channels of reality programming and the few die hards will congregate around the few bright spots of fictional storytelling while they last. (You should prepare for vastly smaller seasons of shows, like the British models.)

I don’t matter, so why even try to make it through these endless show hiatuses that kill anything serialized? Why endlessly pine and dread if the uncounted just don’t matter?

Screw off Nielsen. Take your appointment viewing system and burn in hell for killing too many of my loved ones. I for one am finding it too painful to play with your stacked deck.

Re:Finally someone with brains

[halowolf]

Yes it is nice to get someone that has an open mind as to what the problems with TV are. I like watching TV shows, however I don't watch many anymore. I don't like shows coming out 6 months to a year later, I don't like time slots being moved around so much that its hard to record them without a Tivo-esque device (or with the 5 - 10 minute schedule drift many of the major channels employ). I don't like ads that blast the room with sound when they employ their volume shifting bastardry.

What I like is watching the shows when I want to watch them, scheduling them into my life rather than having to schedule my life around them. What all content providers have to get their head around is that these technologies are empowering users to live a social and interactive life their way and if you don't want to keep up with that or embrace it then there is going to be problems.

Re:Mainly to do with Australia

[TapeCutter]

you end up with mulitple stations broadcasting the same show

Yeah, last night the royal wedding was on almost every fucking station. I was going to watch the chaser's "uninformed and unconstitutional" coverage of it but then the royal family pulled the plug on their licence.

Well, lets see what is on TV shall we?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The BBC, yesterday. One side showing "the wedding". The only way I watch that if they made it interactive and I could enact my republican fantasies. Once thing about the French, they know how to deal with royalty. Russians too. Nice job guys, want to helps the rest of the world out?

The other side, snooker. The most boring thing ever to be televised apart from hurdling. That is it! On a friday! Prime time TV? Must watch TV? Not on the beeb.

Have I Got News For You is still funny although this weeks episode seems to have been cancelled and the previous one was more about "The wedding" then the middle east being on fire. Gosh they have plenty to say if Israel defends itself by killing a single muslim in a week but if muslims kill hundreds of muslims that is apparently not fit to discuss in a satirical news program. Am I so wrong in finding it all funny?

The rest of the time, cooking shows. Now don't get me wrong. I like food and I am actually quite good as a cook but how many master chefs can one stomach? According to the BBC dual and even triple episodes in a row.

Okay, so to discovery, geographic channel and animal planet. If anyone in America is bored, then you please go and shoot that mexican dog licker? My god that show is on 24/7. If I want to train a bad dog I kill its owner, then eat the dog. Just because a single program does well does NOT make it a good idea to replace your entire schedule with it. Diversity, it is the spice of live. For instance I would like some cat sprinkled on my chow.

Discovery? Come on, Cake Boss? Are you serious? And you thought American Chopper was gaying it up as much as possible. (come on and entire show with butch men in leather making shiny stuff). I get tired of the same formula. "Oh shit, we are running out of time, yet again, we do so every single time but never learn to start a bike, cake build a tiny bit earlier because thatwould deprive us of fake tension only the most gullible would believe". Even if some of the programs are interesting, the commercials kill it. Not just to long, to loud and to stupid, they repeat the same ones over and over in the same show AND then run ads for the very show I am trying to watch. That is like ordering a burger and then being told about that very burger instead of serving it.

Comedy Central? Thank you, I seen the Simpsons a dozen times over and Family Guy and such are simply not funny to anyone who isn't 12.

There is simply nothing to watch. Now I don't hate TV, I am as ready as the next guy to sit in front of the idiot tube after a day at work and let my mind rot. I like it, just there is absolutely nothing on or if it is it gets interrupted by a 5 minute commercial block. That causes me to look away and when I look back, the NEXT commercial block is on.

Instead, I simply download the few things I want to see (since I am in europe often the entire season is available already by the time I hear about it) and watch them in HD with no commercials blocks and no re-scheduling because some jack-booting asshole wants to get married to a slut.

TV has a problem. People like mindless entertainment but for millenia they had to create it themselves. Once every household had a musical instrument because that was the only thing to do at in the evening hours. Theathers were everywhere filled with crap actors for when people got fed up with the same song every day. Then movies came and made entertainment for the masses for the first time. TV made it even easier, just pump a production straight into everyones home. The perfect way to spend those hours between work and going to bed. Don't deny it and claim you read a book, statistics prove you didn't.

But that was in the days when we had no choice. Either you watched it on the TV stations terms or you didn't. And because they controlled us (don't deny it, I seen the empty streets when something special happened in TV land) they thought they would always control us and added longer and longer commericial blocks, now even showing ads over the programs

Seasons are behind because seasons are behind

[tepples]

it airs the "new" US shows from 6-18 months behind their release dates in the US

That might be because Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere, whose climate is 6 months behind that of Europe and North America. If the weather seasons are 6 months behind, why shouldn't the TV seasons be?

Re:Content

[TaoPhoenix]

Hmm.

I don't watch any "TV". I haven't had a "TV" for seven years.
However, I do watch a nice chunk of Hulu, because you can stack 3 episodes and watch them in a bloc on a random Thursday at 10PM. I wouldn't call House, Fairly Legal, or The Chicago Code "stupid". Every writer knows that scripts are "Hollywood-ized", so be it. But those are passably intelligent shows.

You can vote down (or up) ads on Hulu, so presumably if you downvote the Washing Machine ads some five times, they eventually go away. I try to vote up the Audible.com ads because I want to see who else is doing Audio Books, but nothing showed up yet.

But yes, I agree, your average '80's show won't cut it anymore.

Re:Finally someone with brains

[theshowmecanuck]

And when they go into reruns part way through the season, or they stop broadcasting entirely for a couple of weeks or more and then come back on. And what is it with the short season lengths? TV seasons used to last 25 to 30 weeks. Now they're 12 weeks???? To say TV is getting more lame as time goes on is like saying Ci Lo is just chunky. Maybe if they provided something worth watching instead of 'reality tv' they wouldn't be so far behind. It's all for the shareholders.

Create something cheap to produce to maximize revenue for the shareholders, instead of worrying about good product for the customers and long term stability for the employees. Instead of win, win, win, it is win for a short time, get fucked, get fucked. And then eventually the customers get tired of the crap product and it is lose lose lose. End of story.

Over emphasize of the shareholders so the already overpaid CEO can get bigger bonuses for a short time then out the door with a gold parachute. Same bullshit that plagues the financial industry plagues every other industry in North America and Europe lately. Sure, the shareholders should get paid, but not to the exclusion of long term viability. Businesses like these have adopted the parasitic self-cannibalization strategy since around 1990.